The insurance exchanges associated with the Affordable Care Act opened up October 1, and while the impact of the new marketplace remains to be seen, one thing is certain. Many people aren’t aware of the tax implications of the Affordable Care Act.

We’ve listed a few frequently asked questions about taxes and the Affordable Care Act to help clear some things up:

Q: I’m a 56 year-old retiree (lucky me!), and I’m planning to sign up for coverage through one of the new exchanges that just opened up. Is there an opportunity for me to receive tax credits to help with my premiums?

A: Maybe. If you exceed the income limits below, you can still receive coverage through the new health care exchanges, but you will not be eligible for premium assistance via federal tax credits. If you fall within these ranges, the insurance exchange websites provide tools to help you calculate your total premium assistance tax credit.

Q: What is considered income in the equation to see if I qualify for premium assistance tax credits?

A: Income is considered:

Adjusted Gross Income, plus:

Non-taxable Social Security benefits

Excluded foreign earned income

Tax-exempt interest

Income is not

Certain Roth IRA distributions

Withdrawals from savings or basis (Cost basis of an investment is the initial amount deposited, plus any additional capital gains or dividends that have been reinvested into the investment, which have already been included on your tax return.)

Life insurance loan proceeds

Line of credit proceeds

Q: What if I’m close to the income thresholds, but I’m not sure exactly where I land?

A: Come and see a financial advisor who can help you both determine your income AND develop a tax-efficient income distribution strategy to help you qualify for premium assistance tax credits.

Q: What else do I need to know about tax implications of the Affordable Care Act?

A: If you have a high household income (>$250k for those married, filing jointly), you should be aware of a Net Investment Income tax of 3.8% that went into effect 1/1/2013, as well as an additional Medicare surtax of 0.9%.

The failure in Washington is disappointing, if not a surprise. However, history tells us it is not necessarily a bad thing for investors. The 16 government shutdowns over the past 37 years, which have ranged from one to 21 days, have not been particularly negative for stock market investors, averaging only a 2% decline for the S&P 500. More importantly, from a longer-term perspective, they preceded above-average returns. The S&P 500 Index has risen 11% on average in the 12 months following the shutdowns, compared with 9% for all periods. Notably, in the last government shutdown 17 years ago in late 1995, the S&P 500 rose 21% in the subsequent 12 months.

As the government shutdown began on the morning of October 1, stocks actually rose after falling modestly in the preceding days. That reaction makes sense, since selling stocks into short-term political uncertainty has been costly for investors in recent years.

Of course, the shutdown is not the only issue facing investors from Washington. We are also approaching a breach of the debt ceiling on October 17, leading to the remote-but-heightened threat of default on some U.S. obligations if lawmakers fail to increase the limit on total U.S. federal government debt. Fear over the threat posed by the debt ceiling seems well contained at this point. For example, the VIX, often called the “fear gauge,” is currently around 16 and not at the 48 level seen in August 2011, when the debt ceiling was last the subject of a battle in Washington and stocks fell 17%. Also, default concerns currently seem minimal with the discount on the one-month T-bill at just six basis points versus 17 basis points at the peak of fear in early August 2011. Perhaps this is because the economic and fiscal backdrop in the United States, and especially Europe, is much improved relative to the 2011 episode.

While it is good news that the markets have been relatively steady, without a negative market reaction there is less pressure on politicians to compromise. Furthermore, the longer the shutdown goes on and the closer we get to the debt ceiling deadline, the more the market is forced to make politicians act. We continue to monitor events closely and believe this is not a time for indiscriminate selling but rather a time to look for opportunities to buy on weakness.

Over the past few weeks, you may have heard financial pundits and analysts referring to the “Hindenburg Omen.” As you likely know, the ill-fated Hindenburg zeppelin took about half a minute to burn and come crashing to the ground, so it’s clear what this market signal used by technical analysts is supposed to magically foretell. Believers of this market signal suggest that the market is going to crash within the next 30 days.

Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services does not believe this market signal has any actual predictive power in and of itself. Studies that have been done on the validity of this “omen” are plagued with data mining and small sample size issues, both of which undermine any conclusions. Nevertheless, we think it’s important that you understand the basis of what the financial news outlets are discussing.

What exactly is the Hindenburg Omen?

According to believers, this market omen is supposed to be followed by a market crash within approximately 30 days of the trigger. A trigger occurs when the following four events occur on the same day:

The daily number of NYSE new 52-week highs and lows are both greater than 2.8% of the sum of NYSE issues that advance or decline that day,

The NYSE index is greater in value than it was 50 trading days ago,

The McClellan Oscillator is negative, and

The number of new 52-week highs cannot be more than twice the number of new 52-week lows.

Why should I be skeptical of this so-called omen?

If you are wondering how this seemingly random set of criteria can predict a market crash, it probably can’t. The fact of the matter is, proponents of the Hindenburg Omen that cite its historical reliability tend to ignore some important issues:

The omen tends to have many false positives. Even though there has been a Hindenburg Omen before every market crash, there have been many Hindenburg Omens that have not been followed by a market crash. You’d miss out on a lot of market upside if you sold after every omen trigger.

Since there have been only a handful of market crashes in the past century, small sample size bias is a huge issue with the research.

The existence of the Hindenburg Omen is probably the result of data mining. In other words, researchers dug through piles and piles of data until they finally found a set of criteria that has been true prior to every market crash. But even though the set of criteria has been true, it doesn’t mean the criteria has any actual predictive power.

So what should you do? Keep your wits about you. The media thrives on eye-catching headlines, and it doesn’t get any better than “Hindenburg Omen Predicts Market Crash”. Could the market crash in the next 30 days? Sure, but it could crash over any 30 day period. There is no evidence that the Hindenburg Omen has any true ability to predict a crash. Our goal is to create effectively diversified portfolios that seek to minimize losses were such an event to occur – and seek to deliver higher potential returns if it doesn’t.

If you’ve been paying attention to the financial headlines lately, you’ve probably noticed that quite a few of them have been dedicated to the Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010, which contained several action items intended to “clean up” the financial services industry. Three years later, one item in particular is making headlines: a statement that authorized the SEC to establish a rule requiring securities brokers to act as fiduciaries.

What does that mean for you?

Well, if your money is currently managed by a brokerage firm, it potentially means a lot. Right now, brokers generally are not held to a fiduciary standard, meaning they generally don’t have a legal obligation to act in your best interests. They are required by law to make recommendations that are suitable for your needs. This means that certain brokerage firms can sell you proprietary products and/or other products they stand to benefit from the sale of.

To be clear: This doesn’t mean that proprietary products are bad; it simply means that you have the right to question why your advisor is suggesting a particular product. If s/he stands to gain from its sale, you may want to do your own due diligence and investigate whether this is truly the best option for your personal retirement goals.

Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs or RIA firms), which is the heading that Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services falls under, are required by law to act in a fiduciary capacity. This means that we legally must act in our clients’ best interests at all times when making financial recommendations.

So, you may be asking, why would anyone NOT want to work with someone who is legally required to work in their best interests?

Where people usually decide whether or not to use a fiduciary versus someone a non-fiduciary revolves around cost and the future of their relationship. Generally speaking, fiduciaries charge a fee and non-fiduciary advisors charge a commission. The fees charged by an RIA, for example, might be higher than the commissions one comes across with a broker.

And maybe that’s OK with you – maybe you’re not looking for a long-term partnership with an advisor that gives you continuous advice; maybe you just want some one-off advice for one particular move. In that case, it may be more reasonable to go with a broker. Either model may be right for you, based on your investment objectives.

The U.S. Department of Labor is already weighing on what they think should be done: Jason Zweig of The Wall Street Journal reported on August 9, 2013 that “as early as October, the U.S. Department of Labor is expected to propose new rules that would ensure that brokers and other securities professionals would act solely for the benefit of their clients when advising on individual retirement accounts (IRAs).”

How this impacts you, the consumer, remains to be seen. If the SEC ends up establishing a fiduciary standard for brokers, there could be major changes ahead for the financial services industry.

Nothing changes for the RIAs, though. We’re still held to the same high standard we’ve been upholding for years at Wealth Enhancement Group. Through our fiduciary responsibility to our clients, you can be sure that when you work with us, your advisor is consistently giving you advice that’s objective, unbiased and always in your best interest.

Remember the good ole days? Back when you could have a summer job working as a camp counselor, a babysitter or a lifeguard, and help fund a significant portion of your college expenses?

While these were – and still are – noble endeavors that can teach young adults valuable lessons about social and financial responsibility, when it comes to paying for college these days, they’re simply not that useful anymore.

In fact, depending on how much one makes, it may actually be doing some harm.

Why? Because the federal financial aid formula factors in a student’s income. In fact, a student’s income and assets are the biggest piece of the financial eligibility formula. Any income over a base protection amount ($6,130 earned in 2012 for the 2013-14 school year) is heavily assessed, and all assets held in the student’s name are assessed at a maximum of 20%. Student assets can include things like their own bank accounts, trust accounts, UGMA/UTMA custodial accounts and education trusts. Retirement assets like Roth IRAs are not included.

For example, if Junior has $10,000 in a Roth IRA, it won’t impact his financial aid eligibility one iota. If he has $10,000 in his bank account, though, his eligibility may drop by $2,000.

This isn’t to say that Junior shouldn’t take that amazing (paid!) internship at a local law firm, but from a college planning perspective, it may be in both his and your best interest to take the income he receives from that job and place it in an account in your name, since parental assets are assessed at a much lower rate than a student’s (approximately 5% versus 20%).

Junior can also avoid taking a major financial aid hit by getting a work-study position on campus, which doesn’t factor into financial aid considerations. He’ll still get the benefits of a regular job – income and discipline – without the financial aid penalty. Moreover, since most work-study positions are on campus, he likely won’t have to take a portion of his income to pay for transportation to and from his job.

Planning for college funding is complicated – and we’re here to help. If you feel overwhelmed by the number of options available to you, consider attending our upcoming webinar, “Education Planning and Funding: 4 Steps to Help Ensure Your Plan Makes the Grade,” on August 21, 2013.

For many working Americans, the most important financial decision they will ever make is deciding when to retire.

Retirement age can vary greatly from one person to another. Obviously, very wealthy professionals, executives, business owners and others may have the means to retire comfortably whenever they’ve had enough of the daily grind.

But for the vast majority of working Americans, retirement is something that must be planned and paid for through a lifetime of saving and investing. Until you’ve saved sufficient assets to fund a viable retirement, your options are very limited.

There are a number of factors to consider in planning for your retirement. Whether you work through these issues on your own or with the help of a financial advisor, you need to give serious consideration to when and how you wish to retire.

Here are several questions you need to answer before you can set a retirement date:

How much money will you need each month to pay your bills? In some cases, you may be able to live on less than you did during your working years, but in my experience working with clients, I find that they often spend more in retirement because they have more leisure time. They may travel more and become involved in more outside activities. The other factor to keep in mind is inflation. The cost of living tends to double about every 25 years, so you’re going to need twice as much money to cover your expenses in 25 years than you need now.

How’s your health? If your health is declining, you may have no choice but to retire as soon as possible. But if your health is still good and you have the interest and energy to continue working, you might want to work beyond age 65—either full- or part-time. By working longer, you can use your earnings to live on rather than tap into your retirement savings, and can even add to that savings and give your investments more time to grow.

What is your family’s history of longevity? If your parents or most of your family has a history of living well beyond age 65, it will be important for you to build up an investment nest egg that can sustain you for two or three more decades. That may mean that you’ll have to work well into your sixties and possibly beyond to build up a large enough retirement account to get you through your golden years.

The biggest mistake would be to retire too soon. While the lure of carefree retirement days may tempt you to leave the work force early, you need to be sure you have enough assets and income to pay the bills for two or three decades to come.

Before you take any action, you might want to discuss your situation with your tax advisor or financial advisor to see which course of action would make the most sense for you.